This is topic Paramount drops film in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=002971

Posted by Pasquale DAlessio (Member # 2052) on January 18, 2014, 07:28 AM:
 
Obituary?

My sincerest condolences to the film industry and their families.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/envelope/cotown/la- et-ct-paramount-digital-20140117,0,5245137.story#axzz2qkvpTjsY [Frown]
 
Posted by Luis Caramelo (Member # 2430) on January 18, 2014, 07:40 AM:
 
hi1 Pasquale,unfourtunly this,s only the beguining,that,s one more razon for all of us film lovers must keep togheter,,,

regards;
luis caramelo
 
Posted by Ernie Zahn (Member # 274) on January 18, 2014, 08:32 AM:
 
Though the movie that showcased the switch from film to digital is getting archived on film:-)
http://motion.kodak.com/motion/About/News/2013/Dec05_1.htm

Order of remaining film life:

Distribution:Almost gone as digital is cheaper.

Production: Many many directors like JJ, Spielberg, and Tarantino will still shoot film but it will likely always be unbalanced negatives that go straight to a digital intermediate. Never hitting a projector.

Archival: Right now there isn't a viable way to store films digitally. At least nothing that can be backed up, and stored away for decades with a guarantee that it's still fully intact. Film has proven the test of time. Even movies that are shot digitally are archived on film.
 
Posted by Thomas Dafnides (Member # 1851) on January 19, 2014, 07:26 PM:
 
I am surprised that the remaining film-only theaters are not trying to capitalize on " Real Movies on Film" in their advertisements.
 
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on January 20, 2014, 12:32 AM:
 
I don't think your average cinema goer would be aware, care, or even understand if its digital or film they are watching.

Any cinema that has not yet converted might have a problems trying to get 35mm prints. They really have left there run to switch to digital a bit late.

Graham.
 
Posted by Maurice Leakey (Member # 916) on January 20, 2014, 05:36 AM:
 
This seems that film, as such, will never disappear if it's to be used for archiving digital movies if there's no sure way of digital prints being archived as they are.
 
Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on January 20, 2014, 05:56 AM:
 
Pretty much the whole reason we virtually stopped going to the cinema now as the digital switch does nothing for our viewing pleasure in facto it has detracted completely from a cinemagic experience. These days our main stream cinema visits are very limited to only the latest Arnold Schwarzenegger
picture but we are great supporters of 35mm Cinemas such as the Super Cinema at Stockport with a projection room complete with a fully working Vitaphone disc projector. With all the marketing dross about the switch to digital thankfully film will continue not least with amateur film archivists like ourselves.

Plaza Stockports next film presentation will be on 24th Jan
Alec Guiness double bill: 2:30pm onwards
 
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on January 20, 2014, 06:38 AM:
 
Agree totally, Lee. It's just not the same going to the "cinema" at all. Like Tarantino says ... TV in public and he's quite right in my opinion

Saw an interview with him and loved his response to the question "Are you filming digital soon (or something like that)?" and his response was "Pfff" ... Loved it

Tarantino for president and make a law against digital
 
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on January 20, 2014, 12:00 PM:
 
I love film too, but ask any forum members here if they would part with their digital projectors and optical discs and I am sure the answer would be a resounding NO!
The fact is that digital has opened up whole new horizons for the film collector and home showman, so lets keep things in perspective.
Pretty soon we might all be crying about the the loss of DVD's and Blu Rays to low definition 'films on a stick'.
 
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on January 20, 2014, 12:54 PM:
 
To say its just "TV in Public" well I think that's being a bit narrow minded. I have watched The Book Thief", Gravity, The Sound Of Music at the cinema, using their Christie digital projectors and it looks good...no complaints and that's coming from someone that is picky like me [Smile]

Graham.
 
Posted by Lee Mannering (Member # 728) on January 20, 2014, 12:56 PM:
 
Hi Paul. Um not quite a resounding no Paul my VP went a couple of years ago also remembering this is a film forum and not disc or digital forum. Actually as has been said oh so many times before real film has much more to offer even over and above the resolution issue. As yet I know of no film collectors event where visitors go and ogle at a video projector in every corner or a room full of discs, in facto used DVD’s over here are quite a job to sell for 50P. I’m quite bias towards film as you would expect as its everywhere HELP SOMEBODY!
I know what you mean tho. [Smile]
 
Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on January 20, 2014, 01:09 PM:
 
I like the best possible image as much as the next guy or gal when watching a movie. I collect movies on VHS, DVD, laserdisc and film. I don't have a digital projector and I really don't want one. I watch the VHS, DVD, and laserdiscs on my TV and watch my films in my cinema. As far as being a film collector some of my prints are not of the best quality but the magic of celluloid running through the projector is still there so if its not crystal clear and perfect...that's ok with me...it just makes it all the better when it is!

Bill [Smile]
 
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on January 20, 2014, 01:37 PM:
 
I'd love to have a digital video projector**, but if it came down to not collecting film anymore I'd just as soon not have one.

There's just something about putting a print up on screen I took years to find with a machine I've nursed back from the point of death using a sound system I built myself that slipping a disc I bought last week on Amazon into a machine I don't understand the operation of doesn't cover from the standpoint of satisfaction.

**Look for me to have a new front storm door and a redecorated upstairs bathroom first. I actually have the new car, so that much is out of the way now.
 
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on January 20, 2014, 01:49 PM:
 
I am actually considering selling off all DVD's, Blu-Rays and just get films, no videos ...

And it's more a forced evil, as I can't get TV that's not digital anymore, oh how I wish I could. Haven't 100% decided I want to quit the video, but I am seriously considering it. Most of the Blu-Ray's I have have some slight jerky movement, I can't really understand why it should, as it's also 24fps, but seeing Gremlins on 16mm and then the Blu-Ray, the 16mm beats it hands down for me.
 
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on January 20, 2014, 03:55 PM:
 
I agree with everything you guys are saying. There is NO way that I will abandon reel film collecting and reel film projection. As Steve says, the level of satisfaction (and accomplishment)is so much greater with true film projection. And yes you can get tremendous joy just looking at some of these magnificent film projectors and marvelling at their design. No one pays a second glance to my Panasonic AE4000 digital projector - just an uninterseting black box!
But I can also get really blown away by projected video in the home, particularly blu ray projection. Looking at something like Cleopatra or The Robe on a 9ft wide screen with 5.1 surround sound is to me a theatrical experience, fully replicating the cinema experience of the 1950's.
And I love the DVD/Blu Ray extras, with the wealth of background information that they provide.
In conclusion, I love film, and I love digital.
 
Posted by Ernie Zahn (Member # 274) on January 20, 2014, 04:12 PM:
 
Let's be clear about one thing. This isn't the end of film per say. This is the end of projection in **mainstream** theaters. Personally I still enjoy the look of film but the environmental, financial, and human resources it requires is a major detriment to the Earth.

We're talking about tens of thousands of prints moving across the world nearly weekly.

When you think of all the damage it causes, it's not worth it so us few who can tell the difference can enjoy it. That's why we build our basements and living rooms as the last outposts for film. As long as it exists somewhere for people to appreciate, it's still relevant on some level.

I'm glad mainstream theaters are switching to digital, they are being more socially responsible, scaling back cost so that even in a terrible economy like this it's possible to have a movie industry. If they kept the overhead of photochemical film, the grossing would be too low and the movie going experience would dry up all together.

Also, just to be clear:

Super-8 is greater than DVD
Blu-Ray is greater than Super-8
Blu-Ray is almost on par with 16mm
35mm is greater than Blu-Ray
35mm is greater than 4k (but not by much)
6k & 8k is greater than 35mm (by a lot)

6k & 8k are going to be in theaters sooner than you think.

There are some grey areas here and none of this accounts for sound quality. Blu-Ray beats any film format in sound by any scientific measurement.

While Blu-Ray is sharper than Super-8 it suffers from some other issues. The bitrate is high but not so high that you can't see the aliasing from the digital image.

Vidar what you are seeing is likely the rolling shutter. Actual film suffers from this as well but it may be more apparent depending on your TV or Blu-Ray. Some TVs are 120Hz and others are 60Hz. The other factor is that, just like projectors, there are bad ones and good ones. The best Blu-Ray player on the market is still the PS3. Many Blu-Ray players don't handle complex image changes as well because their GPU is not up to the task - even though they still call them Blu-Ray players. The PS3 is a work horse for Blu-Ray. If it weren't for the aliasing it would be a flawless superiority. Since the aliasing is there, however, it still has one thing that Super-8 does better.

Also one more thing I'd like to make clear. I'm not saying this has come up in this thread but I see it trend every now and then. Some anti-digital folks tend to group DVD and Blu-Ray together. They are VERY different formats. Blu-Ray has lossless sound, 2.25x larger image size, and a whopping 12x better image quality.

The DVD is to Blu-Ray as the house cat is to the African lion. If your impression is different then:

1. Time for a new eye exam!
2. Get the right TV

I love film but let's get the facts straight and not make stuff up just to defend film. Just want to keep this stuff in mind to keep the argument fair.
 
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on January 20, 2014, 04:36 PM:
 
it is sad that film is going, however, things do move on and get better as they do, its like ive said before, i am a film man through and through but whilst i wont sell my collection unless i have to, i must, and am, seriously looking at blue ray projection later in the year to run along side my super 8,
Its all about cost for me, only this week i have purchased two very short cartoons for my Brother for his birthday, they cost me over £20 , they both run for around 6-8 minutes each and whilst one is superb quality the other is,in my opinion, crap, scracthed with sound to match and is one of those awful techno prints,however, i will keep it but every time i buy a film that i project and think after projecting it, Why did i just blow a tenner on that? As time goes buy films are getting harder to buy with good quality and some dealers are abonding monthly or bi-monthly lists in favour of e-bay because people are stupid enough to pay way way over the odds for them,
With DVDs and blu-ray so ridiculously cheap film is something that now has to be questioned.
I love my films but we cannot stop the process and advances of the digital age. Now Paramount have abadoned film its inevitable that the others will follow.
We are the steam trains of our game.
I wonder with films selling as high as they do on e-bay, when will they get to a point where they become worthless???? (never i hope).
 
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on January 20, 2014, 04:39 PM:
 
And nothing beats 70mm yet ... It's also got something to do with the lifeless image for me ... Film just has something extra for me ... My TV is 200Hz 3D Sony (cost me about 2400 GBP)

I also see this problem on 4K or maybe it was 8K at the Odeon in London and the image is stuttering (ie missing frames from time to time) ... Most visible when big things move fast (like a close up of a head turning)

I did however find The Creature from the Black Lagoon 3D very nice, though also suffering from the frames missing. The depth was better than most newer titles I've seen. Even Avatar I think (will see this again soon, only seen at the "cinema")

To me, digital is cold, lifeless and barely tolerable (cinema is out of the question for me)

I will in the future get to see many old films, and I feel comfortable with that. Soon I have a feature of Casablanca, which I actually haven't seen at all. Looking forward to that, new digital movies, not so much

Many thinks I am mental, but I don't mind :-)
 
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on January 20, 2014, 04:51 PM:
 
whilst i agree 100% Vidar unfortunatly the paying cinema goers wont give a monkees how there films are projected, i love film film very much but as the papers say, it could be as quick as the end of this year that films studios will all but abandon film, just like the DSLR has all but replaced the SLR. and like all things digital it will improve year on year, like digital camers have more and more Mega pixels the movies will get more and more Ks. The flaws you speak of will, i gaurantee it, be short lived, Dont get me wrong, i really do love my cine films but unfortunatly i dont like paying big bucks for poorly kept movies that are fading and seeing some dealers using ebay to maximise profits all goes to show its all about £s and $s and bollocks to what people think.
 
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on January 20, 2014, 05:21 PM:
 
The last year and few months, I've been enjoying film much more than before. So for me, the cold picture of Blu-Ray won't be close to the feeling of reels. I also dislike the green/blueish cold tones the colors has nowadays.

So if anyone is so happy with Blu-Rays, I can buy the Blu-Ray for you and you give me your film :-)
 
Posted by Tom Photiou (Member # 130) on January 20, 2014, 05:29 PM:
 
[Wink]
 
Posted by Ernie Zahn (Member # 274) on January 20, 2014, 06:30 PM:
 
Vidar I totally agree with you on the look of film. I like it too. That's part of why I still collect.

But your claims about digital stuttering and the green/blueish tones really need to be backed up by something, even a wikipedia article. Or it's important to state that, this is what your experience is and that you're not claiming that all digital looks like that. It's simply not true. Maybe the projector at your local theater is shoddy. Here is the U.S. at AMC they are stellar. And the only issue is that aliasing problem that I mentioned before.

No matter what any digital sensor picks up, all the high end cameras: Arri Alexa, RED Epic, etc. have the ability to record in raw which has perfect color space and all of these digital files can be manipulated beyond leaps and bounds better compared to what three strip technicolor could achieve. Even technicolor as invested in digital solutions for this very reason.

Again, I'm a film fan too but facts are important otherwise us film folks sound like a bunch of politicians trying to make our side sound better.

Calling it "cold" is fine because that's a subjective viewpoint but claiming something specific as to its motion or the color really needs to be grounded real proof or at least by saying "at least that has been what I've seen."
 
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on January 20, 2014, 07:04 PM:
 
It's also important to remember whatever it is now, it is still under development and will be improved.

Unfortunately this means the systems in place will be obsoleted sooner than later: a bitter pill to swallow if you own a theater and borrowed a ton of money to have them installed only a few years ago.
 
Posted by Bill Phelps (Member # 1431) on January 20, 2014, 07:23 PM:
 
[Frown]
 
Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on January 20, 2014, 07:28 PM:
 
Cinemas only switched to digital and pay for the conversion because they were forced to. Without product to screen you are simply out of business, and I would imagine that has already happened to some.

For me....well, I got 12 years getting paid for something I enjoyed doing "projection work that is", but like all things in life, things do come to an end.

However, I did take a lot of stuff with me when the place closed and I am now the only one still running a 35mm projector with a five deck platter [Big Grin] .....in the garage [Wink] and it does get used.

Film and film projection will always be something "special" but in saying that, I am happy to run video projection and watch Blu-ray as well.

Graham. [Smile]
 
Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on January 20, 2014, 07:36 PM:
 
This is what it is, and any idea it's going away is futile.

We may as well be honest about the issue and see the good along with the bad.

One way of looking at it is we live in an era where home entertainment is getting more and more capable, and at least from a technical standpoint the incentive to go out to a movie is smaller and smaller.

It's the same thing that's been going on ever since people started getting radios in their homes (never even mind TV): if the theatrical Cinema can't stay two steps ahead technologically pretty soon it will go away.

This gave us sound, then it gave us color, then it gave us 'scope, then stereo.

-and the process never ends. we're just in a new phase of it.

So it may be digital cinema, or none at all.
 
Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on January 20, 2014, 10:13 PM:
 
Don't confuse home video projection as being equal to TV. It is a totally different ball game. Blu Ray on a large flat panel TV can, more often than not, look grossly over saturated and very unnatural. Projected onto a large screen in a dark room however, blu ray comes into its own with a picture looking much closer to film.
Top quality Super 8 prints can often look much more pleasing than projected Blu Ray. Case in point, my Derann print of That's Entertainment 3 has much better color than anything I can get on digital, which looks muddy by comparison. Same thing for Mickey's Christmas Carol , the blue ray screen shots look a disaster in comparison to the Derann S8 print.
 
Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on January 21, 2014, 12:32 AM:
 
I love film but I have to say that here in NYC, Digital Film is hard to tell apart from traditional film. It looks really good. That being said, when I hear of a Feature of a Super 8 film for sale that I want I get really excited. But somehow DVD's just don't do it for me as a collectible medium. I would rather keep digital files of the film than to have to put in a disc. But film...being able to hold up the film and see the frames...that is something that never ceases to amaze me.
When all the other film companies follow suit, and they will because of the savings in $$ and the increased profit margin, I feel many of the companies that make film stock are going to fold as well.
I had a discussion about Super 8 vs. DVD many years ago with a friend and told him that the Super 8 picture when blown up looks so much better than a DVD or Videotape blown up. That was true then but now the gap is closing and does so year after year.
Of course if you really want a great Video Projector, I saw one on my trip to Japan last year. The picture was truly stellar. Looked like film so I checked out the type of projector it was. I don't remember the model but when I looked it up on the net I saw that it retailed for $24,000!
You can get a lot of GS's for that money..but of course you wouldn't be able to see "Wolf of Wall Street" on it.
I guess I'll just keep on playing my 600ft'er of the Muppet Movie till it breaks!
 
Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on January 21, 2014, 01:23 AM:
 
It's just my opinion ... When I see new films, be it on Blu-Ray or cinema, I see the tint of blue or green, I believe it's mostly green. I can't say if my eyes is doing this or my brain, but that's what I see. When I saw Gremlins and the camera pans down the street when Billy goes to work, the background isn't moving as smooth as on the 16mm print. I guess I might be picky, but my friend and I see mostly the same things (he's even worse than me).

Had this problem with games when I collected them too. How can a game like Grand Theft Auto be sold in so many copies? It's absolutely appalingly coded with all the backgrounds stuttering. And people say it looks good. So I might be the problem myself, but that's how my brain receives this.

People are using Netflix and if someone here tells me that is good quality, I don't know. All my opinions and I can't change them because anyone says I should. Video give me much less satisfaction, film has given me a new hobby, which I apparantly love more than most. 2K cinema was even more horrible, with all the pixelations, especially in dark scenes. Almost threw up when I saw I am Legend, due to the quality. If my local cinema is bad or not, I don't know, but it's not better at the Odeon in London. The compression is not good enough and if you can't see the stutter of a missing frame or two, good for you. I see it and get a bad experience from it. My opinion

Sorry, I'll get out of this now and have not much more to say really.
 
Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on January 21, 2014, 07:06 AM:
 
All the information we put here is great! Were just sharing experiences..good and bad. Its all good! [Smile]
I didn't notice the bad quality on the latest films Ive seen but once I went to an advance screening (free) for the press and public. So they could create a buzz for this film called, "Along came Polly".
Once I got in and they started playing it- I noticed the blacks weren't that great and also when they did an aerial shot of a building at night...I saw aliasing..stuttering..jerky.
I went up to the projection booth and peeked in. Digital Video!
That looked terrible and I felt short changed. Even if i didn't pay! But I haven't seen something that bad in a few years. But I have definitely seen bad video projection.
 
Posted by Ernie Zahn (Member # 274) on January 21, 2014, 07:29 AM:
 
Another thing to consider is sometimes they rush BluRays to market and the transfer is no good or the restoration team did a bad job color correcting.

This was usually the case of DVD vs Laserdisc. DVD has better picture than Laserdiscs but Laserdiscs, more often than not, had better sound mixes. In fact thats what Laserdisc is famous for besides being gigantic.

Usually I buy BluRay if it doesnt exist on Super 8 or if it is a long shot to find on Super-8.

There many many bad transfers out there though. Sometimes it exists on Super-8 but not on BluRay or the BluRay version is a crummy transfer while the Super-8 is a really nice Derann print. In those cases the choice is obvious. As long as I can get my hands on it:)
 
Posted by Osi Osgood (Member # 424) on January 21, 2014, 12:37 PM:
 
Really a terrible idea from the studios. Film, as we all know, has it's own specific qualities that, even with adding "grain" to digital, just can't replace.

With everything becoming so lifelike, (with digital), I really don't care for it, as were just watching a digital projection.

Quite sad, but predictable.
 


Visit www.film-tech.com for free equipment manual downloads. Copyright 2003-2019 Film-Tech Cinema Systems LLC

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2